Blog Post

Why was the last TLTRO take-up unexpectedly high?

The final round of TLTRO financing was an unexpected hit with euro area banks. The aim of the programme is to encourage banks to increase lending to the real economy. However, with many now expecting a hike in deposit rates, banks’ enthusiasm might be driven largely by the chance to make a profit from the cheap loans.

By: Date: March 27, 2017 Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance

Last week the ECB published data about the take up of the fourth and last tranche of funding from the second Targeted Long-Term Refinancing Operation (TLTRO 2.0). The data showed an unexpectedly large demand for liquidity from euro area banks. In total, EUR233.47bn was allotted to 474 Eurozone banks.

Although the level of liquidity in the Eurozone remains high, banks enthusiastically took up this last opportunity to borrow money from the ECB for 4 years at negative rates. Prior to the publication of the figures, the Bloomberg consensus (the median estimate of a Bloomberg survey) was forecasting a take-up of about EUR110bn. At EUR233.47bn, the final amount is therefore more than twice what was expected.

When TLTROs were created in 2014, the aim was was to incentivise banks to finance the real economy. In order to do that, the ECB offered banks a new opportunity to fund themselves for 4 years for a volume calculated from their outstanding loans to the euro-area non-financial sector (TLTRO 1.0). In the second programme, TLTRO 2.0, banks were “allowed to borrow an amount equivalent to up to 30% of their outstanding eligible loans on 31st of January 2016, net of the funds from the previous TLTRO that they may still need to repay”.

The interest rate of the loan is normally determined by the MRO rate at the date of the take-up (0% today). However, if the bank’s net lending between 1 February 2016 and 31 January 2018 is higher than a specific benchmark, the cost of TLTRO can fall below that. Specifically, the rate applied can be as low as the deposit rate at the date of the take-up. The ECB’s deposit rate entered negative territory to -0.1% in June 2014, and three more cuts followed, leading the deposit rate to -0.4% today.

This innovation in TLTRO 2.0 reduces the cost of holding increasing reserves at the ECB because of the negative deposit rate. Indeed, if banks borrow at 0% but need to pay the deposit rate of 0.4% for holding reserves, there is some cost involved. However, if banks borrow at 0.4% and pay 0.4% for their deposits, borrowing becomes costless for them. In addition, expectations about the future path of the deposit rate also play a role. If banks expect the deposit rate to increase over the next four years, they can actually make money out of these loans, regardless of what they do with the money. Take up of this fourth and final round of TLTROs might therefore have been influenced by a significant change in expectations.

Following the ECB’s last press conference, in which Mario Draghi was considered a bit more hawkish than previously expected, and with headline inflation suggesting that the ECB is close to its target (even though core inflation is still far from the target), the market is now pricing in a deposit facility rate hike in the first quarter of 2018. This is an important shift. One year ago, market participants were still expecting a further fall in the deposit rate, while now they expect a rise.

Let’s take a look at the EONIA (Euro Overnight Index Average) forward curve, which gives us a picture of market expectations about possible future hikes in the deposit rate. Figure 1 shows the change in market participants’ expectations after the last ECB press conference. As of 22 March, they are pricing in at least one or two 10 bps hikes in the deposit facility rate over the next 12 months.

Looking at the trend in the 1y1y forward EONIA rate (Figure 2) also shows that markets reacted strongly ahead of and straight after the ECB’s last Press Conference on 9 March. The rate increased by 15 bps in less than a week, confirming that market participants now expect hikes in the deposit facility rate.

On aggregate, German and French banks already met their own net lending benchmark and the 2.5% loan stock target, which means that they should easily get the reduced rate of -0.4% for their take-up of the TLTRO. Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Greek banks still have to increase their net lending to the private sector, if they want to lower the reimbursing rate and benefit more from the operation. On aggregate, the periphery countries met their negative benchmarks; however, their eligible net lending remains still below the 2.5% of benchmark loan stock. (See the ECB’s latest Economic Bulletin for more information about developments in net lending to private sector.)

To conclude, through the use of TLTROs banks were able to secure funding for four years at a rate which can go as low as today’s deposit facility rate. Given that they expect the deposit rate to go up during these four years, by securing a four-year funding at a reimbursing rate potentially equal to -0.4%, banks are actually forecasting to make money thanks to TLTROs. This might explain why the last TLTRO was more attractive than the previous ones.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The international use of the euro: What can we learn from past examples of currency internationalisation?

The recent State of the Union speech by Jean-Claude Juncker sparked a discussion about the potential wider use of the euro on the international stage. Historically, it is not the first debate of this kind. Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol analyses four previous cases of debates on international currencies to reveal the different scenarios associated with their greater use, as well as the need to have a clear objective for a currency’s internationalisation.

By: Emmanuel Mourlon-Druol Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: October 15, 2018
Read article Download PDF

Policy Contribution

European Parliament

Excess liquidity and bank lending risks in the euro area

In this Policy Contribution prepared for the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (ECON) as an input to the Monetary Dialogue, the authors clarify what excess liquidity is and argue that it is not a good indicator of whether banks’ have more incentives in risk-taking and look at indicators that might signal that bank lending in the euro area creates undue risks.

By: Zsolt Darvas and David Pichler Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, European Parliament, Testimonies Date: September 26, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Something Putin and Juncker appear to agree on – the euro

“It is absurd that Europe pays for 80% of its energy import bill – worth €300 billion a year – in US dollars when only roughly 2% of our energy imports come from the United States,” said President Juncker in his state of the union speech.* Europe’s largest supplier of energy – Russia, who accounts for a third of that bill – couldn’t agree more. Russia’s offer to switch to euros in trade with the EU will likely be costly to implement, but the US switch towards unilateralism is forcing its long-standing partners to question the dollar’s global dominance.

By: Elina Ribakova Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: September 25, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Monetary policy and superstar firms

The yearly Jackson Hole gathering of central bankers has focused this year on the topic of changing market structure, the rise of superstar firms, and the implications of the way they compete for central banks.

By: Silvia Merler Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: September 4, 2018
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Should we care about central bank profits?

The authors investigate the ECB’s profit-making activity of the last 20 years, assessing how this was achieved and the reasons why we should care more broadly about central banks generating profits.

By: Francesco Chiacchio, Grégory Claeys and Francesco Papadia Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 30, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Opinion

The ECB is compromising the attractiveness of euro-area sovereign bonds

The ECB should refine its collateral framework in order to continue protecting its balance sheet without putting at risk the safe-asset status of sovereign bonds of the euro area.

By: Grégory Claeys and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: August 29, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Criteria for entry into the ERMII and the banking union: the precedent from Bulgaria

In its bid to join the single currency Bulgaria has made commitments on financial supervision but also wider structural reform which set a precedent for future applicants for participation in the exchange rate mechanism ERMII. Most conditions, though not all, are justified by the additional demands of the banking union. But the envisaged timeline seems ambitious, and verification will not be straightforward.

By: Alexander Lehmann Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: August 29, 2018
Read article Download PDF

Policy Contribution

European Parliament

Cryptocurrencies and monetary policy

Can cryptocurrencies acquire the role of money? And what are the implications for central banks and monetary policy? Read the policy contribution to understand what challenges cryptocurrencies have to overcome to replace official currencies.

By: Grégory Claeys, Maria Demertzis and Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: European Parliament, Finance & Financial Regulation, Testimonies Date: June 28, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Director's Cut: The drama of the EU and euro area

Bruegel's director, Guntram Wolff, is joined by Ashoka Mody, visiting professor in international economic policy at Princeton University to discuss topics from his latest book, Euro tragedy: a drama in nine acts.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 27, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Euro tragedy: a drama in nine acts

This event featured a presentation by Ashoka Mody of his new book, which argues that the Euro is at the root of the problems the European Union faces today.

Speakers: Maria Demertzis, Ashoka Mody and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 27, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Is the ECB collateral framework compromising the safe-asset status of euro-area sovereign bonds?

Central banks’ collateral frameworks play an important role in defining what is considered as a safe asset. However, the ECB’s framework is unsatisfactory because it is overly reliant on pro-cyclical ratings from credit rating agencies, and because the differences in haircuts between the different ECB credit quality steps are not sufficiently gradual. In this note, the authors propose how the ECB could solve these problems and improve its collateral framework to protect its balance sheet without putting at risk the safe status of sovereign bonds of the euro area.

By: Grégory Claeys and Inês Goncalves Raposo Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 8, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

News from the South. Proposal to strengthen the European Monetary Union: Combining fiscal discipline with risk sharing

On 4 June Bruegel, as in previous years, will host the presentation of the Euro Yearbook, a collection of experts’ insights on the construction of the European Monetary Union through 2017.

Speakers: Cristina Cabrera, Maria Demertzis, Fernando Fernandez, Massimo Giuliodori, Javier Méndez Llera and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: June 4, 2018
Load more posts